does a train use more engery than a plane as it goes faster ?

Very informative as usual Joe.The ease and efficiency with which a HSR can be built and put into service in Australia is the factor which kills it compared to air travel for Fuel Efficiency,if you count resources expended in the getting of a high speed line over,around and through that pesky Great Dividing Range which seperates ALL the large population centres on the east coast/hinterland. By comparison,Paris via Lyon to Marseilles cuts through 770km of relatively easy country for road and rail building.Thats why Romans linked these places 2000 years ago.It runs through the middle of France which has 65 million people and 80 million tourists per year.The Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne chunk of Australia gets not all of our 7 million tourists per year,and runs through sparsely populated areas with generally expensive energy guzzling HST building Terrain to try to achieve a 320 km/h cruise speed route. That Highway in the Sky was cost free and doesn't wear out.! As well Paris is bigger than either Sydney or Melbourne,Canberra is a squib ,and the rest of Australia isso far removed from the East Coast and hinterland it may as well be on Mars as far as boosting HST revenue.

Johnny,

The first point is that there is already a rail corridor between Sydney and Melbourne and also one from Sydney to Brisbane. Some re-alignment will be necessary for HSR, and additional areas added. It also must be noted that potential routes for HSR have bene thouroughly researched over the past 30 years.

Even with the climb through the mountains the rail system will still be an order of magnitude more efficient than air travel.

The bulk of Australia's population is in the area that the proposed HSR will service.

Melbourne and, particularly, Sydney airports are very busy. This will only worsen as the population increases.

Very informative as usual Joe.The ease and efficiency with which a HSR can be built and put into service in Australia is the factor which kills it compared to air travel for Fuel Efficiency,if you count resources expended in the getting of a high speed line over,around and through that pesky Great Dividing Range which seperates ALL the large population centres on the east coast/hinterland.By comparison,Paris via Lyon to Marseilles cuts through 770km of relatively easy country for road and rail building.Thats why Romans linked these places 2000 years ago.It runs through the middle of France which has 65 million people and 80 million tourists per year.The Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne chunk of Australia gets not all of our 7 million tourists per year,and runs through sparsely populated areas with generally expensive energy guzzling HST building Terrain to try to achieve a 320 km/h cruise speed route. That Highway in the Sky was cost free and doesn't wear out.! As well Paris is bigger than either Sydney or Melbourne,Canberra is a squib ,and the rest of Australia isso far removed from the East Coast and hinterland it may as well be on Mars as far as boosting HST revenue.

You start by paying Joe a compliment then continue as if you hadn't read a thing he said. "Our group found the thing very sound both financially and technically. . . . . All such a HST needs for tis run is political will and courage".- The Great Dividing Range is not the problem.- Are you sure a HST would be "energy guzzling" compared to the current air travel? Aircraft energy costs go beyond the fuel usage. Think about the high maintenance costs, component "lifing" and energy intensive high-tech materials. The Highway in the sky might not wear out but aircraft certainly do.- The size of Paris is irrelevant. Melbourne - Sydney is one of the busiest air routes in the world, busier than Paris - Any other Airport.- The concentration of population down the Australian East coast makes it more suited to HSR - the dots all connect along a single line. Service the interior with air transport.

- Are you sure a HST would be "energy guzzling" compared to the current air travel? Aircraft energy costs go beyond the fuel usage. Think about the high maintenance costs, component "lifing" and energy intensive high-tech materials.

Not to mention the support activities in an airport - baggage handling, fuel handling, etc.

The F-22 Raptor requires 10+ hours of maintenance for every flight hour. Obviously that would be uneconomic for a civilian airliner, but does anybody know the equivalent numbers for a 737 or an A320 (which are the competitors to a HST in Australia)?

Recently, while transferring between the domestic an international terminals at Sydney airport, I saw two A380s - one in a maintenance hangar and another sitting on the tarmac, but not near the terminals.

You start by paying Joe a compliment then continue as if you hadn't read a thing he said. "Our group found the thing very sound both financially and technically. . . . . All such a HST needs for tis run is political will and courage".- The Great Dividing Range is not the problem.- Are you sure a HST would be "energy guzzling" compared to the current air travel? Aircraft energy costs go beyond the fuel usage. Think about the high maintenance costs, component "lifing" and energy intensive high-tech materials. The Highway in the sky might not wear out but aircraft certainly do.- The size of Paris is irrelevant. Melbourne - Sydney is one of the busiest air routes in the world, busier than Paris - Any other Airport.- The concentration of population down the Australian East coast makes it more suited to HSR - the dots all connect along a single line. Service the interior with air transport.

Between Sydney and Melbourne is a great potential wind power area, so in theory these high speed trains could be powered by the wind. Anyone that thinks the high speed trains can use the existing rail corridor should really look at the map to see how often a southbound train has to travel north. Harden is as far north as Moss Vale. Look at the line between Goulburn and Yass and see the amount of bends to get over the ranges. Then there are silly things like the spiral at Bethungra. A new rail corridor incorporating a goods line would improve efficiency immensely.

Please go back to my post no. 16 where I broadly summed up a whole bunch of studies by noting that they all concluded that broadly any mode of rail transport is 2 to 3 times more energy efficient than any aircraft mode.

Let me now put some real numbers to you. The A380 is about the most fuel efficient aircraft now in the air. The TGV is at the cutting edge of energy efficiency for rail transport. The A380 has several passenger configurations ranging from three classes of about 525 seats to all cattle class at about 850. The single set of duplex TGV seats just over 500. In crowded times they put two sets together so seating just over 1000. They both travel with utilisations of about 70 to 95% full so both carry about the same number of passngers.

Aircraft have their greatest fuel burn in takeoff through reaching cruising altitude so broadly speaking the longer the flight the more fuel efficient they are.

The A380 carries a max fuel load of 320,000 liters with a max range of 15400 km. A fuel burn of about 18 l/km giving a safety margin of a little over 10% for heaf winds etc. This nets out at about 610 megajoules per km travelled.

By comparison, the TGV in the Paris-Lyon activity uses about 65 mJ per km of electrical energy. But this is not a fair comparison to the A380 as there are losses in generating and distributing electricity. Depending on the fuel efficiency of the generator a conversion factor of fuel to electricity might be as low as 40%. Thus the fuel consumption of the TGV might be about 160 mJ/km. (The generator might also be a lot more efficient.)

The red herring of the energy use of rail in traveling hills has been raised. For sure, potential energy is used in climbing mountains/hills but if the train arrives back at nearly the same elevation as it starts its journey the regenerative capability of good design provides in about half this climbing energy being put back into the system, thus saving this fuel from being burned at the generator.

I trust that this helps to keep things in context. You can juggle factors until the cows come home but the answers still come up in about the same range of answers.

Please go back to my post no. 16 where I broadly summed up a whole bunch of studies by noting that they all concluded that broadly any mode of rail transport is 2 to 3 times more energy efficient than any aircraft mode.

Let me now put some real numbers to you. The A380 is about the most fuel efficient aircraft now in the air. The TGV is at the cutting edge of energy efficiency for rail transport. The A380 has several passenger configurations ranging from three classes of about 525 seats to all cattle class at about 850. The single set of duplex TGV seats just over 500. In crowded times they put two sets together so seating just over 1000. They both travel with utilisations of about 70 to 95% full so both carry about the same number of passngers.

Aircraft have their greatest fuel burn in takeoff through reaching cruising altitude so broadly speaking the longer the flight the more fuel efficient they are.

The A380 carries a max fuel load of 320,000 liters with a max range of 15400 km. A fuel burn of about 18 l/km giving a safety margin of a little over 10% for heaf winds etc. This nets out at about 610 megajoules per km travelled.

By comparison, the TGV in the Paris-Lyon activity uses about 65 mJ per km of electrical energy. But this is not a fair comparison to the A380 as there are losses in generating and distributing electricity. Depending on the fuel efficiency of the generator a conversion factor of fuel to electricity might be as low as 40%. Thus the fuel consumption of the TGV might be about 160 mJ/km. (The generator might also be a lot more efficient.)

The red herring of the energy use of rail in traveling hills has been raised. For sure, potential energy is used in climbing mountains/hills but if the train arrives back at nearly the same elevation as it starts its journey the regenerative capability of good design provides in about half this climbing energy being put back into the system, thus saving this fuel from being burned at the generator.

I trust that this helps to keep things in context. You can juggle factors until the cows come home but the answers still come up in about the same range of answers.

Regards

Joe

Once the HST is up and operating it is undoubtedly efficient.But you surely must factor in the energy used getting the line built.The study released in August this year contains in it's summary "the cost of 101 billion for a Brisbane /Sydney/Canberra /Melbourne system will NEVER recover it's costs in fare revenue".In other words it's taxpayer subsidised.Given our existing tracks are not properly maintained to allow even our humble XPTs to use their 160 kmh speed capability it seems track maintenance for a HST will also have to be taxpayer subsidised,or there will be either dead bodies all along the route or a HST that can't go all that fast.

Given that trendy car owners driving around in foreign made cars object to the Government giving Australian car manufacturers regular drip feeds,you would have to wonder how the HST would really be received politically if the average voter ever became aware of it's real,and ongoing,costs.No wonder the Federal Govts are shy of rushing in !

Once the HST is up and operating it is undoubtedly efficient.But you surely must factor in the energy used getting the line built.The study released in August this year contains in it's summary "the cost of 101 billion for a Brisbane /Sydney/Canberra /Melbourne system will NEVER recover it's costs in fare revenue".In other words it's taxpayer subsidised.Given our existing tracks are not properly maintained to allow even our humble XPTs to use their 160 kmh speed capability it seems track maintenance for a HST will also have to be taxpayer subsidised,or there will be either dead bodies all along the route or a HST that can't go all that fast.

Given that trendy car owners driving around in foreign made cars object to the Government giving Australian car manufacturers regular drip feeds,you would have to wonder how the HST would really be received politically if the average voter ever became aware of it's real,and ongoing,costs.No wonder the Federal Govts are shy of rushing in !

How much energy is required to produce the fuel for an A380? To deliver it to the plane? To deliver food and drink and water, and to remove the dirty water? How much energy to build and run the airport. How much for all of the flight crew, ticket agents, luggage handlers, security staff, car park operators? One could make similar estimates for a train for comparison. How do the French manage to operate their HST's for a profit? Or do they?

How much energy is required to produce the fuel for an A380? To deliver it to the plane? To deliver food and drink and water, and to remove the dirty water? How much energy to build and run the airport. How much for all of the flight crew, ticket agents, luggage handlers, security staff, car park operators? One could make similar estimates for a train for comparison. How do the French manage to operate their HST's for a profit? Or do they?

IF they make a profit,it would be a lot to do with the number of train sets they fill.The Paris-Lyon one I looked atyesterday runs 50 !!! trains per day between 6am and 9pm.Our recent Australian study looks at only 8 sets of carriages ,so projected numbers are as small as you might suspect.Too much infrastructure,too few passengers....Fail!! The number of residents plus tourists in S.E.Australia nowhere near matches the European or Asian numbers.Even the USA, in a 2009 study ,only looked at Baltimore/NewYork/Boston and San Diego/L.A./San Francisco as possibles,and found more doubt than decisions.The entire interior of USA was considered not populous enough to consider fastest HST class AT ALL !

IF they make a profit,it would be a lot to do with the number of train sets they fill.The Paris-Lyon one I looked atyesterday runs 50 !!! trains per day between 6am and 9pm.Our recent Australian study looks at only 8 sets of carriages ,so projected numbers are as small as you might suspect.Too much infrastructure,too few passengers....Fail!! The number of residents plus tourists in S.E.Australia nowhere near matches the European or Asian numbers.Even the USA, in a 2009 study ,only looked at Baltimore/NewYork/Boston and San Diego/L.A./San Francisco as possibles,and found more doubt than decisions.The entire interior of USA was considered not populous enough to consider fastest HST class AT ALL !

The interior of the US is too widely spaced. And if there isn't the people movement then there is no need for the services.

The California HST proposal is SF-LA-SD but also with the possibility of a line to Las Vegas (about 40 minutes by plane, 4 -5 hours by car), and maybe further north too.

On the east coast I have seen proposals that include Chicago, Boston, NYC, Washington DC and all the way down to Florida. The north east, in particular, is very densely populated, with a lot of movement between cities by air, car, bus and train. The area is already serviced by a train capable of 200km/h, but for whatever reason averages only 100km/h. I guess the only doubt they have is who is to fund the upgrades.

As for Australia - 8 sets ~ 4000 passenger capacity ~ 25 Airbus A320/Boeing 737 flights. Currently there are about 600 such flights per week between Sydney and Melbourne. The estimated journey time between Sydney and Melbourne is approximately 3 hours, Say 5 trips per day, ~20,000 passengers per day ~ 125 Airbus A320/Boeing 737 flights per day.

The interior of the US is too widely spaced. And if there isn't the people movement then there is no need for the services.

The California HST proposal is SF-LA-SD but also with the possibility of a line to Las Vegas (about 40 minutes by plane, 4 -5 hours by car), and maybe further north too.

On the east coast I have seen proposals that include Chicago, Boston, NYC, Washington DC and all the way down to Florida. The north east, in particular, is very densely populated, with a lot of movement between cities by air, car, bus and train. The area is already serviced by a train capable of 200km/h, but for whatever reason averages only 100km/h. I guess the only doubt they have is who is to fund the upgrades.

Wuzak-

There are no US passenger rail routes that currently operate at a profit or break even. In fact, I believe there are also no light rail, subways or bus systems that operate at a profit. They all require taxpayer subsidies. However, there are some freight rail companies that operate profitably. And the majority of US domestic commercial airlines make a profit. But the only transportation system in the US that continually produces the greatest net revenues for the general welfare is the public road system. The US public road system generates huge amounts of cash each year for state and federal governments. A US HSR system would not. So why waste money on such a boondoggle?

I dont think the TGV network in France acheives 90% load factor. According to the academic reference below its 71% with the German ICE system acheiving 50%. The UK number is about 40% or so. As the article points out the TGV makes an 11% profit but the ICE is not profitable.

Two other important points are made in the papaer.

1) The TGV is a fully "closed" system -you have to pre book every seat like an airline. You cannot just turn up at a station and ride a TGV. The ICE trains ( and UK HST 's) are "open access" walk up systems even if the instant ride price is very high. The more "closed" the sytem the more you can deploy yield mgt. pricing.

The differnce betwen the TGV profit and ICE /HST losses is most likely load factor so for high speed rail not to cost non travelling taxpayers a lot of subsidy you need 70%+ load factor - i.e just like an airline.

The very long distances in France on TGV's ( by Euopean standards ) also helps revenue and CO2 levels per pasenger.

Bottom line the more the HS train acts like a plane the less subsidy and the lower its CO2/pas/km.

2) The report also touches on a vital point related to the original question of rail speed/CO2 vs plane. The faster the rail line runs ( beyond a certain point) the fewer trains per hour on the track. This is basic safety. As speed goes up braking distances increase and the default position on rail safety is the train ahead stopped suddenly.

18 trains per hr at 200kph becomes only 11 trains at 300 kph. So TOTAL route capacity falls as speeds increase. There is practical and commercial limit to incresing train size ( as with planes ) so as you seek more speed with HS rail you start to drive up the infrastructure cost per pass./km in two ways - more contsruction costs AND less passengers per amrtisation hour.

A few years back a motor magazine did a cost comparison between catching a discount domestic flight Sydney/Melbourne and driving a Honda Jazz economically, but without being a mobile chicane.The petrol
used by the Honda cost less than the plane ticket,but in some attempt at fairness they added the cost
of the driver's lunch to that because he was still en route after the plane landed,so the plane "won".
Of course , if the Honda had a passenger,or 2 or 3,it would have been No Contest,car wins easy.

As bigleagueslider says,government subsidises highways to benefit road transport as a common good,
might as well use them to get around if you own a car.I can just hear future agonised bleats of "how many hospitals and schools could be built for what that HST cost..and WE never use it" (that's a problem too !!!)

Have a look at the engineering required to make HSR comfortable for passengers (and keep the train on the tracks) at 320km/h. If you did try to upgrade our existing rail corridors where they run through most of the Great Dividing Ranges,it would be such radical earthworks and associateds you would be better starting from scratch.Very gentle curves only can exist,or you'll need to do neck exercises like a Formula 1 driver to keep your spine in line.And crests and dips can only be very gradually achieved or feelings of nausea and vertigo are experienced.The problem with the Great Dividing Range is not climbing hills and using power ,it's the huge amount of track construction, diesel and concrete guzzling,huge cuts and fills with their environmental impact,the cost in real estate,and strict maintenance regimes forever.

These trains are too fast to be able to be self powering,so the grid must be drawn on and all that constructed and maintained.Wind power would not provide constant reliable power of the scale needed,HSR is not any kind of solution if saving the planet from CO2 floats your boat.

A few years back a motor magazine did a cost comparison between catching a discount domestic flight Sydney/Melbourne and driving a Honda Jazz economically, but without being a mobile chicane.The petrolused by the Honda cost less than the plane ticket,but in some attempt at fairness they added the costof the driver's lunch to that because he was still en route after the plane landed,so the plane "won".Of course , if the Honda had a passenger,or 2 or 3,it would have been No Contest,car wins easy.

As bigleagueslider says,government subsidises highways to benefit road transport as a common good,might as well use them to get around if you own a car.I can just hear future agonised bleats of "how many hospitals and schools could be built for what that HST cost..and WE never use it" (that's a problem too !!!)

And what was the difference in the time it took to travel the journey?

Highways cost as much as railways to construct and maintain.

A future HST will take a lot of its customers from flights.

The same argument of "how many hospitals and schools could be built for what that HST cost..and WE never use it" could be levied at the airports that will have to be built to allow for future travel needs. As we have seen with the second Sydney airport the attitude is "not in my backyard".

Have a look at the engineering required to make HSR comfortable for passengers (and keep the train on the tracks) at 320km/h. If you did try to upgrade our existing rail corridors where they run through most of the Great Dividing Ranges,it would be such radical earthworks and associateds you would be better starting from scratch.Very gentle curves only can exist,or you'll need to do neck exercises like a Formula 1 driver to keep your spine in line.And crests and dips can only be very gradually achieved or feelings of nausea and vertigo are experienced.The problem with the Great Dividing Range is not climbing hills and using power ,it's the huge amount of track construction, diesel and concrete guzzling,huge cuts and fills with their environmental impact,the cost in real estate,and strict maintenance regimes forever.

These trains are too fast to be able to be self powering,so the grid must be drawn on and all that constructed and maintained.Wind power would not provide constant reliable power of the scale needed,HSR is not any kind of solution if saving the planet from CO2 floats your boat.

Most of the rail corridor is not in the Great Dividing Range. So most of the corridor will not need radical works. The route has been studied and planned for 30 years, so I see no particularly difficult issues.

Roads need more real estate, and are just as subject to the needs of maintenance.

Australia could go to 100% renewable electricity generation using existing technologies within 10 years if the desire and will was there.

There are no US passenger rail routes that currently operate at a profit or break even.

That's debatable. Amtrak's Northeastern Corridor may or may not be profitable, depending on what math you use, but it's certainly capable of running at a profit if subsidies were suddenly pulled.

In any case, I think such discussions are a red herring. Infrastructure by its very nature offers so many positive externalities that it is in fact desirable from economic standpoint to subsidize it. Take Northeastern Corridor out, and the already dysfunctional (and in many places taxpayer subsidized) I-95 is going to become a total clusterfuck. There would be a huge economic cost to that.

I was reading earlier that Amtrak has to pay for the pensions for its ex-employees as well as other ex-rail workers that never worked for Amtrak. On the other hand the airlines have been excused from paying their ex-employee benefits, that burden instead falling to the US government.

I can just hear future agonised bleats of "how many hospitals and schools could be built for what that HST cost..and WE never use it" (that's a problem too !!!)

Why are you so certain that a HST system wouldn't be used on the proposed route?

A large proportion of the travellers between Melbourne and Sydney are business travellers. On day trips. The train would pick them up in the CBD and drop them off in the CBD - which is certainly not the case for trips to Melbourne airport.

Time wise the HST will be very competitive with air transport. The proposed HST route has a terminal near Melbourne airport, so those people living on that side of the city will not be disadvantaged, time wise, to catch the train. Train seating will not be like the cattle cars of the skies.

And while the headline grabbing prices for airlines are cheap, that is for a month or two in advance, and for limited numbers of seats. Flying at short notice will cost you quite a bit more.

Funding for the HST system would not come from the hospitals or school funding, any more than funding for road works does. In fact, I suspect that the bulk of the monies will come from road funding for New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, both state and federal funds.

Why are you so certain that a HST system wouldn't be used on the proposed route?

A large proportion of the travellers between Melbourne and Sydney are business travellers. On day trips. The train would pick them up in the CBD and drop them off in the CBD - which is certainly not the case for trips to Melbourne airport.

Time wise the HST will be very competitive with air transport. The proposed HST route has a terminal near Melbourne airport, so those people living on that side of the city will not be disadvantaged, time wise, to catch the train. Train seating will not be like the cattle cars of the skies.

And while the headline grabbing prices for airlines are cheap, that is for a month or two in advance, and for limited numbers of seats. Flying at short notice will cost you quite a bit more.

Funding for the HST system would not come from the hospitals or school funding, any more than funding for road works does. In fact, I suspect that the bulk of the monies will come from road funding for New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria, both state and federal funds.

Well in order how would those business dudes get to the CBD,do they live there? There goes an hour,plus.Who says the HST is gonna be at the CBD .If it is going to be at the CBD of Melbourne and Sydney,factor in a few more gazillions of infrastructure.This is the difference between planning and dreaming.Practical people are sidelined at postmodern bigpicture planning as they are seen as negative and/or boring.The show ponies want to emerge with a message of peace,love incense and bells for the media....and nothing is allowed to stop that...even reality or common sense.

Part 2 ...funding !!! sheesh wuzie boy you're economics are as bad as your engineering.There's no Magic Pudding,and errr since GST State funding IS Federal funding,which is now at 10%,but because so many people have cottoned onto participating in the black economy ,Federal revenues are falling,and we'll be lucky if it isn't raised soon,so any dreamtime HST will get wakeup call.The long-promised divided carriageway for cars and B-Doubles from Sydney to Brisbane is way behind schedule,you are not going to fund a HST for cashed up business pretenders and the occasional tourist with money out of Highway funding for godsakes.

Well in order how would those business dudes get to the CBD,do they live there? There goes an hour,plus.Who says the HST is gonna be at the CBD .

A lot of "business dudes" do live in the city.

Tell me, does that hour magically disappear if they have to get to the plane?

If they are on the south side of Melbourne that means extra travelling to get to the airport. But for those in the north of Melbourne the proposal is that there will be a train station near the airport, so it won't cost them any extra time getting to the train compared to getting to the airport.

If it is going to be at the CBD of Melbourne and Sydney,factor in a few more gazillions of infrastructure.This is the difference between planning and dreaming.

The train stations are already there - in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and they are already serviced by interstate trains. There is no major infrastructure there. HSTs like the TGV use standard gauge rail, so they will operate on the existing lines in and out of the city.

The estimates that have been put forward do include capital works for the stations in other areas where there may not be the facilities now.

Practical people are sidelined at postmodern bigpicture planning as they are seen as negative and/or boring.The show ponies want to emerge with a message of peace,love incense and bells for the media....and nothing is allowed to stop that...even reality or common sense.

Being "negative and boring" is not the same as being practical.

HST systems have shown to be practical by numerous studies. As Joe said the only reason we don't have it is we haven't had the political will.

Common sense tells us that Sydney airport is already running at near capacity. It has no space for upgrades, and has serious operating restrictions. That means a new airport is required. The NSW government has been trying for that one for years. The cost of a new airport would be approximately 1/5-1/4 of the proposed HSR network.

I have not done any engineering here. Others have already done the preliminary work - several times.

There's no Magic Pudding,and errr since GST State funding IS Federal funding,which is now at 10%

The state governments do receive GST from the federal government, but they are not required to spend it in any certain way. They have their health budgets, education budgets and infrastructure budgets - which includes road and rail.

The Federal government also assists the state governments for projects such as road building by providing funds other than the GST for that specific purpose.

but because so many people have cottoned onto participating in the black economy ,Federal revenues are falling,

I can't say as to whether the "black economy" is any bigger or smaller than it used to be. But, ironically, that is one of the reasons used to justify the GST.

The federal budget is more susceptible to swings in the economy than any upturn in the "black economy". The down turn in the mining sector is a case in point.

so any dreamtime HST will get wakeup call.

Who knows, the HST may be part of a future stimulus package. FWIW, the 2008/9 stimulus was AU$40bn, or about 40% of the proposed HST works.

The long-promised divided carriageway for cars and B-Doubles from Sydney to Brisbane is way behind schedule,you are not going to fund a HST for cashed up business pretenders and the occasional tourist with money out of Highway funding for godsakes.

Lets recall that the Sydney-Melbourne-Brisbane air system already deals with approximately 10m passengers per year just on those routes. A HST network must be part of Australia's future transport needs on the east coast. If you get the HST operating you will probably reduce the demand on the interstate freeways. Running passengers on the HST will free up the rest of the rail network and, possibly, allow the freight system to operate more efficiently and cost effectively. If that is the case then more freight can be taken by rail and there won't be as many big trucks on the roads, meaning less need for road upgrades.

I will only dip in here and now to point out that the HST Study that I had a role in was in the 19 nineties and we spent $10 million of 90's dollars over nearly three years ti find out that the Sydney-Canberra-Melbourne was a money maker for private enterprise.

It required no Govenrment money other than to make right of way availble on long term lease. The big time companides unerwriting the study poured that money into it because it did look good!!

As for governments and GST, If you look at GST takings in Oz since GST inception, they have risen at a compounded rate of 7% annually. If the Government can't budget successfully with that kind of growth there is something wrong with it, not us. We haven't seen annual revenue growths os 7% and yet we are expected to still pay our bills and taxes without increasing our debts!!!

Looking back at the question posed in the OP, there is an interesting comparison that has not been considered. Lets compare the cost/benefit of building out a HSR system versus building out a network of regional heliports designed for large tiltrotor aircraft.

The tiltrotor heliports would not create the noise problems of a conventional airport since the tiltrotors would take-off and land vertically. A US tiltrotor system could also take advantage of hundreds of existing regional airports that are currently being underutilized. The infrastructure costs for a national tiltrotor system would be only a fraction of what HSR would cost. In the US, NASA and the FAA have already done much of the development work on an advanced air traffic control system that can easily handle the additional flights. A system of civil tiltrotor heliports would be far more flexible and economic than HSR in terms of adding/changing routes or adding/reducing the number of flights based on demand.

As for the civil tiltrotor aircraft, if there is demand for them the big OEMs like Boeing, Airbus, Sikorsky, Eurocopter, etc. could have them certified and in production within 5-6 years, and would likely use private funding to do so. Most of the necessary technologies such as engines, structures, avionics, flight controls, etc already exist.

I'd rather travel at 550km/h by tiltrotor aircraft than at 300km/h using HSR. Here's a link to an interesting study done by NASA for civil tiltrotor aircraft.

[quote name='Wuzak' date='Dec 20 2012, 20:12' post='6078855']
Why not a Rotodyne? Surely that would be safer?

But helicopters are less efficient and carry less payload than fixed wing aircraft. The only advantage there is that you would have heliports in the city.

Compared to trains you will need a lot of tilt-rotors. Some TGV train sets have 500+ seats. That is equivalent to 3 or 4 737s/A320s. You'd probably need 3 times that in tilt-rotors./quote]

Don't know if the Rotodyne would necessarily be safer than a modern tiltrotor aircraft. Plus the tip jet rotor system of the Rotodyne would never come close to meeting current noise standards for airports, and it would be much slower than a modern tiltrotor.

Regarding the total number of tiltrotor aircraft needed for a national transport system, I agree that it would be several times the number of new trains needed for HSR. But the total cost for the system would still be far less.

Regarding the total number of tiltrotor aircraft needed for a national transport system, I agree that it would be several times the number of new trains needed for HSR. But the total cost for the system would still be far less.

And the operating costs would be more than for HSR, seating would be limited and ticket prices high.

How safe are helicopters? There is something unsettling about aircraft that requires constant power to stay in control, and is relatively difficult to control. I don't know if it's just an uninformed misgiving, or if statistics bear me out.

How safe are helicopters? There is something unsettling about aircraft that requires constant power to stay in control, and is relatively difficult to control. I don't know if it's just an uninformed misgiving, or if statistics bear me out.

That's because the wing is powered. You can 'glide' in a helicopter to an extent but you're also not doing 500mph at 30,000 feet when you start.

I don't know about the safety stats but my rule of thumb, not really frequenting helicopters or small planes, is avoid anything with a single engine.

The problem with tilt-rotors is that they can't auto-rotate. They can glide like a conventional aircraft, however.

The other issue is the use of multiple engines, as on the V-22 Osprey. If one goes out there would be a severe assymetric thrust situation. To cope with this the Osprey has a power transfer system which should allow the engine from one side to power the other, but only for limited periods, and only at half power.

Just read through the document slider linked. Well, skimmed it more likely.

The overall conclusion seems to be that the tilt-rotor concept may be of benefit in short-medium routes (30 miles - 500 miles) when compared to fixed wing aircraft. The benefit is in the take-off and landing modes, which don't require queuing up for access to the runways at busy airports. Most of the discussion refers to operations from current airports, rather than from city centre heli-ports or such.

The performance of a proposed tilt-wing passenger aircraft is not currently available, so route performance is largely a guess. It is suggested that the reduction in delays for departure and landing when compared to fixed wing operations will save time when compared to fixed wing aircraft below the 500 miles, but beyond 500 miles the superior cruise performance of fixed wing aircraft will make the latter the preferred option.

The report does not compare tilt-rotor aircraft with other forms of transport - such as HSR.

One of the options presented is Boston to Newark. A quick check on Orbitz shows a flight time of approximately 90 minutes on a 737. Amtrak shows 4h 42 minutes for a direct train (for $55), or 4h 24m via New York Penn Station (changing trains at NYP, also $55 total). So flight time kills train travel for that journey with the current trains. But with a HST the Boston-NYP trip should be about 90 minutes, and the current 20-25 minutes from NYP to Newark should remain the same. So a HST would be extremely competitive, time wise, for the journey.

The problem with tilt-rotors is that they can't auto-rotate. They can glide like a conventional aircraft, however.

The other issue is the use of multiple engines, as on the V-22 Osprey. If one goes out there would be a severe assymetric thrust situation. To cope with this the Osprey has a power transfer system which should allow the engine from one side to power the other, but only for limited periods, and only at half power.

Wuzak-

A civil tiltrotor does not need to auto-rotate. All tiltrotor aircraft have multiple engines with a rotor interconnect drive system, and can operate in wing borne flight as long as they have fuel, just like any other multi-engine fixed wing aircraft. When it comes time to land under OEI conditions, they can rotate the nacelles to about 45 deg and perform a STOL type landing on the nearest runway, just like any other fixed wing aircraft.

It would be incorrect to compare the flight safety of a civil tiltrotor to conventional helicopters, since they would operated quite differently. One significant factor in helicopter accident rates is due to the fact that they operate in close proximity to ground terrain. A more valid comparison would be that of civil turboprop aircraft accident rates. The latest data I could find for the US passenger deaths per 100 million miles was for 2008. Passenger rail was 0.130 deaths/100M miles, and all commercial aircraft was 0.008deaths/100M miles.

I would still argue that when the total unsubsidized costs for infrastructure and operations are taken into account, a civil tiltrotor system would be more economical than HSR for most routes. The only exception might be locales with large populations confined to limited geographic area.

A civil tiltrotor does not need to auto-rotate. All tiltrotor aircraft have multiple engines with a rotor interconnect drive system, and can operate in wing borne flight as long as they have fuel, just like any other multi-engine fixed wing aircraft. When it comes time to land under OEI conditions, they can rotate the nacelles to about 45 deg and perform a STOL type landing on the nearest runway, just like any other fixed wing aircraft.

It would be incorrect to compare the flight safety of a civil tiltrotor to conventional helicopters, since they would operated quite differently. One significant factor in helicopter accident rates is due to the fact that they operate in close proximity to ground terrain. A more valid comparison would be that of civil turboprop aircraft accident rates. The latest data I could find for the US passenger deaths per 100 million miles was for 2008. Passenger rail was 0.130 deaths/100M miles, and all commercial aircraft was 0.008deaths/100M miles.

A tilt rotor has to operate, at least in part, as a helicopter for the benefits to be worthwhile.

Economically viable? Perhaps, in the short term. Fuel prices will inevitably rise, so what does that do to the viability of the service?

The report seems to advocate the replacement of low volume (where aircraft with approximately 100 seats are used) and short-medium length routes. The gain is in the reduction of congestion and delay periods. But in the near term the only foreseeable tilt-rotor aircraft will have capacities no more than 20-30. So utilising these aircraft will require 3-5 as many flights to replace the ones currently in operation.

HSR will also reduce congestion at airports. By taking passengers off short-medium length routes.

In the longer term there may be 100-120 seat tilt-rotor aircraft, but the volume of traffic will also be greater, and thus will still require more aircraft. Which will increase congestion and delays.

I would still argue that when the total unsubsidized costs for infrastructure and operations are taken into account, a civil tiltrotor system would be more economical than HSR for most routes.

I would ask, do the airlines pay for the FAA? NTSB? TSA? How many of the US airlines have been bailed out?

For the low prices in the US market the US airlines do not rate very highly in customer satisfaction. And the airlines are marginally profitable, at best.

Infrastructure is a major cost for HSR, but it also has a long life. Infrastructure development also stimulates the economy. The government will get a portion of their investment back immediately with taxes on salaries, and company tax. They will get some more indirectly through wages and company income from suppliers and manufacturers for the project (providing they are in the US, and I can't see why they wouldn't be).

But I understand your thoughts. You do not want the government spending money on infrastructure. So, no more roads for you!

The only exception might be locales with large populations confined to limited geographic area.

You mean like the North East of the US?

France seems to do OK with the TGV, despite it not being a "limited geographic area".

The government is unlikely to get money back from any involved corporation. You may recall that, as one example, GE paid no taxes on a profit of 14 billion last year. None. In addition, WTO rules require that countries allow foreign bids on government projects so there is very little guarantee that there's any revenue aside from income tax collected from workers. Government broke, corporations rich.

The government is unlikely to get money back from any involved corporation. You may recall that, as one example, GE paid no taxes on a profit of 14 billion last year. None. In addition, WTO rules require that countries allow foreign bids on government projects so there is very little guarantee that there's any revenue aside from income tax collected from workers. Government broke, corporations rich.

Just because foreign suppliers are allowed to bid it doesn't mean they will win anything.

The Northrop XP-56 "Black Bullet" was a pusher design, and despite having a 2000hp R-2800 never managed to reach the NACA estimated speed of 340mph, let alone the manufacturer's "guaranteed" 467mph maximum.

One explanation is the shape of the short stubby fuselage, and how quickly it tapers to the rear, due to the R-2800 engine, causing turbulence before the prop. Plus the exhaust is ejected into the airstream just in front of the prop, as does the cooling air. Also the trailing edge of the wing meets the fuselage just in front of the prop too.

In contrast, the push-pull Dornier Do 335 was noted to run faster on the rear engine than the front engine when in single engine mode.